Can North Dakota discipline an out-of-state lawyer who practices there, and must local counsel report suspected misconduct?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A California lawyer participated in a North Dakota arbitration and allegedly offered not to represent further claimants against a North Dakota corporation if it paid the lawyer and retained the lawyer as a consultant. The committee did not decide whether that proposed conduct violated a rule.
It concluded that an out-of-state lawyer practicing in North Dakota was subject to North Dakota discipline for that activity and, to that extent, had to comply with the state's professional conduct rules. North Dakota Rule 8.3 did not require the requesting lawyer to report to California authorities. A report under North Dakota Rule 8.3 might be required, but the committee declined to decide finally whether the requester had the requisite knowledge and facts.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1998, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.
Common questions
Q: Did the committee find the California lawyer committed misconduct?
A: No. It discussed possible application of Rule 1.8(b) but did not make a final violation finding on the described facts.
Q: Did the requesting lawyer have to report to California?
A: No. The committee found no North Dakota rule requiring a report to California disciplinary authorities.
Q: Was a North Dakota report definitively required?
A: No. The committee said Rule 8.3 might require it and the facts strongly suggested a duty, but it declined a final determination for this requester.
Background and rules framework
North Dakota Rule 8.5(b) supplied disciplinary authority over an eligible out-of-state lawyer practicing in the state. The opinion discussed Rule 1.8(b) on use of client information and Rule 8.3(a) on reporting a known violation that raises a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- North Dakota Rule 8.5(b).
- North Dakota Rule 1.8(b).
- North Dakota Rule 8.3(a).
Cases:
- Elder v. Metropolitan Freight Carriers, Inc., 543 F.2d 513 (3d Cir. 1976), local rules and pro hac vice practice.
- In re Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. 1995), rules applicable to a visiting lawyer.
Other opinions cited:
- North Dakota Opinions 93-06 and 96-14, limits on committee assessment of a reporting duty.
- Mississippi Bar Informal Opinion FIO 221, reporting possible misconduct by an out-of-state lawyer.
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://www.sband.org/page/ethics_opinions
- Original PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000id_/https://www.sband.org/resource/resmgr/docs/for_lawyers/98-02.pdf
Original opinion text
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1998. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace